Official 2018 Pre Nats Discussion Thread

Badgerstateofmind wrote:Calm down nofacetimber. Byrne/Wisconsin have been dumped on for many years. It goes with the territory of being good (or bad), at something. As a senior citizen, non-Mormon that's followed BYU athletics for decades...gotta say that the Mission issue is a wash. Starts out as a serious disadvantage but eventually resolves itself if the athlete is dedicated. The real "60 minutes" issue, is why Eyestone allowed Clayson Shumay to gain an advantage over his teammates by wearing streamlined sprint trunks instead of the old school, baggy shorts?

walter j wrote:

nofacetimber wrote:

Fools mock, this is the only team in the country who would be subjected to this much mockery and derision after a stellar performance.

The irony is that it is precisely statements like this that lead to them getting derided.

nofacetimber wrote:

Badgerstateofmind wrote:Calm down nofacetimber. Byrne/Wisconsin have been dumped on for many years. It goes with the territory of being good (or bad), at something. As a senior citizen, non-Mormon that's followed BYU athletics for decades...gotta say that the Mission issue is a wash. Starts out as a serious disadvantage but eventually resolves itself if the athlete is dedicated. The real "60 minutes" issue, is why Eyestone allowed Clayson Shumay to gain an advantage over his teammates by wearing streamlined sprint trunks instead of the old school, baggy shorts?

lol good question, I may have got a little heated there just not willing to sit back and not defend what I feel is a foolhardy narrative.

walter j wrote:

The irony is that it is precisely statements like this that lead to them getting derided.

And statements such as those I listed above, mockery with little tact or substance are precisely the reasons why I feel like defending against them. And exposing their shallow derision for what it is.

Have to know how things work wrote:

areusure? wrote:

Ok stupid question....WHY was the race delayed due to frost and why is there a question of what will happen if there's snow on the course at Nat's? Have rules in XC changed? We ran south central regionals in like 2-3 inches of snow and yo know Univs down here are wusses when it comes to cold weather!

Too many people have been asking this question for yours to be 'stupid', in part because of the way you phrased it. For the Regionals race it did not matter if there is short-term damage to the course because they are not running the most important race of the year on it a month later.

If a bunch of grass gets damaged or killed it will not recover as well/enough for the NCAA meet. I am not sure that is hard to comprehend once you think about it in the right context. After all, it is not like they are in the middle of growing season, plus they have had more rain already this year than all but a couple years on record and if the course did not drain so well things would be a muddy mess (in August a little west from the course they got 11-15 inches of rain in a day). It drains well because it is the terminal moraine for the glaciers, which pick up a lot of stuff as they grow and move forward, but when they 'retreat' it is no by pulling back but by melting and dropping all of that stuff and then natural processes add dirt and stuff that makes productive soil.

nofacetimber wrote:

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Totally bogus to have 25 and 26 year olds competing at NCAA. I have no idea why there would be exceptions for religious and foreign athletes. 25 vs. 22 or 23. A world of difference.

I can see that, especially if taken to the extreme and looking at it from an athlete's perspective, a typical high school graduate who goes to college to run at 18/19 years of age that is.

There are at least two aspects which seem unjust.

1st from the perspective of competing to earn a spot on the team, a scholarship or to improve an existing scholarship to support ones education. If I came to a program with aspirations to work hard and compete for additional scholarship money, just to have ready made freshman stars who are older than me come into the program in subsequent years, I would certainly be less than thrilled seeing the scholarship standards seemingly unfairly getting harder and harder to reach for me and other 18 year olds coming up through the American high school system.

Sure, in such a scenario I could and should be happy for the incoming athletes and the talent they bring to the team. But i'd be lying if I told you I wouldn't have any resentment about losing scholarship/varsity opportunities to older athletes with more eligibility and towards the coaches win at all cost attitude.

I see this first scenario as being more applicable to older foreign transfer students as opposed to older returned missionaries.

2nd as an athlete with aspirations to earn all American honors. Imagine your a talented 22 year old who's worked hard and is on the cusp of All American status and recognition your senior year. Just to be beat out by more than a handful of guys 2-3 years older than you at NCAA's.

A few examples of what that could look like two years from now, among others.

A 23 almost 24 year old redshirt Junior Conner Mantz (BYU) taking an All American spot

A 23 almost 24 year old Junior James Sugira (EKU) taking an All American spot

A 24 to 25 year old redshirt Senior Clayson Shumway (BYU) taking an All American spot

It happens and I can empathize with the situation and see how it can be judged as unfair/bogus.

Currently the NCAA has eligibility exceptions for mission bound athletes and it's clear they have exceptions for older foreign athletes in many cases as well.

I don't know what the answer is, but on the unfairness scale I would give the edge to older foreign athletes receiving four years of eligibility vs eligibility being postponed for a maximum of two years for a mission.

Taking away that two year eligibility exception would obviously devastate BYU's athletic program, and yes I know there are those out there who would be giddy to the bone to see it happen.

Additionally talented athletes who make the choice to serve a mission prior to college would be hard pressed to earn any scholarship. To warrant scholarship money they would have to perform right away after a mission and at best get 3 years of scholarship funding with a redshirt. So their best case athletic scholarship scenario wouldn't even support them long enough to earn a bachelors. Again i'm sure no one except for athletes making a difficult decision on whether to serve or not would lose any sleep over this.

And i'm sure there are equally good and noble reasons to give older athletes full athletic eligibility to represent an institution and receive an education. Personally I do not resent that the NCAA grants exceptions for missionary service because I am a fan of the BYU program and culture, including athletes on other teams who choose to serve missions (e.g. Elijah Armstrong - BSU). But I do see where the other side is coming from. I'm wrestling with the same thoughts and feelings about full eligibility for older foreign athletes as well.

An aside:

Eligibility at 26 is rare for a mission bound athlete, usually happens in cases where a medical redshirt is granted. most redshirt seniors would exhaust their eligibility at 25, and even 24 for cross country eligibility.

BYUr4It? wrote:

nofacetimber wrote:

I can see that, especially if taken to the extreme and looking at it from an athlete's perspective, a typical high school graduate who goes to college to run at 18/19 years of age that is.

There are at least two aspects which seem unjust.

1st from the perspective of competing to earn a spot on the team, a scholarship or to improve an existing scholarship to support ones education. If I came to a program with aspirations to work hard and compete for additional scholarship money, just to have ready made freshman stars who are older than me come into the program in subsequent years, I would certainly be less than thrilled seeing the scholarship standards seemingly unfairly getting harder and harder to reach for me and other 18 year olds coming up through the American high school system.

Sure, in such a scenario I could and should be happy for the incoming athletes and the talent they bring to the team. But i'd be lying if I told you I wouldn't have any resentment about losing scholarship/varsity opportunities to older athletes with more eligibility and towards the coaches win at all cost attitude.

I see this first scenario as being more applicable to older foreign transfer students as opposed to older returned missionaries.

2nd as an athlete with aspirations to earn all American honors. Imagine your a talented 22 year old who's worked hard and is on the cusp of All American status and recognition your senior year. Just to be beat out by more than a handful of guys 2-3 years older than you at NCAA's.

A few examples of what that could look like two years from now, among others.

A 23 almost 24 year old redshirt Junior Conner Mantz (BYU) taking an All American spot

A 23 almost 24 year old Junior James Sugira (EKU) taking an All American spot

A 24 to 25 year old redshirt Senior Clayson Shumway (BYU) taking an All American spot

It happens and I can empathize with the situation and see how it can be judged as unfair/bogus.

Currently the NCAA has eligibility exceptions for mission bound athletes and it's clear they have exceptions for older foreign athletes in many cases as well.

I don't know what the answer is, but on the unfairness scale I would give the edge to older foreign athletes receiving four years of eligibility vs eligibility being postponed for a maximum of two years for a mission.

Taking away that two year eligibility exception would obviously devastate BYU's athletic program, and yes I know there are those out there who would be giddy to the bone to see it happen.

Additionally talented athletes who make the choice to serve a mission prior to college would be hard pressed to earn any scholarship. To warrant scholarship money they would have to perform right away after a mission and at best get 3 years of scholarship funding with a redshirt. So their best case athletic scholarship scenario wouldn't even support them long enough to earn a bachelors. Again i'm sure no one except for athletes making a difficult decision on whether to serve or not would lose any sleep over this.

And i'm sure there are equally good and noble reasons to give older athletes full athletic eligibility to represent an institution and receive an education. Personally I do not resent that the NCAA grants exceptions for missionary service because I am a fan of the BYU program and culture, including athletes on other teams who choose to serve missions (e.g. Elijah Armstrong - BSU). But I do see where the other side is coming from. I'm wrestling with the same thoughts and feelings about full eligibility for older foreign athletes as well.

An aside:

Eligibility at 26 is rare for a mission bound athlete, usually happens in cases where a medical redshirt is granted. most redshirt seniors would exhaust their eligibility at 25, and even 24 for cross country eligibility.

This last "aside" brings to light the absurdity of the point the BYU age apologists are trying to make. 26,25,24 are all ages that the NCAA should absolutely, categorically deny from collegiate athletics, period.

26 and still want to compete? Go find your own age group, At 26, your are competing against 18 year olds who were in elementary school when you graduated high school.

BYU should be embarrassed by this but aren't.

This is why most xc fans hate BYU.

It's like being a football stud in high school but coming back each year for 8 years after graduating so you can pummel the freshman.

NCAA should put an end to these age exemptions. You wanna go on a mission at age 20 for 2 years? Cool. Do it. They can still compete for 2 years and still accomplish both.

Other NCAA athletes shouldn't have to deal with BYUs built in age advantage on the premise of religion.

nofacetimber wrote:

BYUr4It? wrote:

NCAA should put an end to these age exemptions.

If that's the case, you have bigger fish to fry before cracking down on 24 year old redshirt senior cross country runners who served missions.

I'm not going to do a lot of research and some athletes don't have a birthdate listed but I can give you two quick examples I know of.

Last years NCAA XC women's champion was a 26 year old sophomore. She could end her track and field at NCAA championships just days before her 29th birthday.

EKU's #1 runner is a 21 year old freshman. With a redshirt he could end his track career at 27 years old.

In both cases you have elite runners entering the NCAA at older ages with full eligibility.

And you are pointing out the absurdity of BYU's 24-25 year old redshirt Seniors. If that's absurd, tell me what the above is?

And where can I find the same passion/anger that many express towards the BYU age issue, for the age issues listed above?

whambulance wrote:

nofacetimber wrote:

And where can I find the same passion/anger that many express towards the BYU age issue, for the age issues listed above?

Keep playing the pathetic "everyone only picks on us" victim card.

BYUr4It wrote:

This last "aside" brings to light the absurdity of the point the BYU age apologists are trying to make. 26,25,24 are all ages that the NCAA should absolutely, categorically deny from collegiate athletics, period.

26 and still want to compete? Go find your own age group, At 26, your are competing against 18 year olds who were in elementary school when you graduated high school.

BYU should be embarrassed by this but aren't.

This is why most xc fans hate BYU.

It's like being a football stud in high school but coming back each year for 8 years after graduating so you can pummel the freshman.

NCAA should put an end to these age exemptions. You wanna go on a mission at age 20 for 2 years? Cool. Do it. They can still compete for 2 years and still accomplish both.

Other NCAA athletes shouldn't have to deal with BYUs built in age advantage on the premise of religion.